MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242025355 · doi:10.2310/7070.2002.34409

Nasopharyngeal Angiofibroma

2002· article· it· W4242025355 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samar Pal Singh Yadav, Ishwar Singh, Rakesh Chanda, Om Parkash Sachdeva

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAngiofibromaSurgeryStage (stratigraphy)Retrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To study the clinical profile of nasopharyngeal angiofibromas, various surgical approaches, and the outcome of surgery. DESIGN: The retrospective study was carried out in 110 consecutive cases of nasopharyngeal angiofibroma over a period of 25 years. SETTING: A hospital-based study. METHODS: In 65 patients, a transpalatal approach was used, and in 38 patients, a lateral rhinotomy approach was used. The tumour was removed by external ethmoidectomy in 2 cases and in by transnasal approach in 3 cases. A modification of the transpalatal approach was also designed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were regularly followed up for any recurrence for 2 to 5 years. RESULTS: Of 118 operated cases, in 33 patients, recurrence was observed. Four cases had to be operated three times and one case four times. All of the recurrences were observed within 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Angiofibroma, a disease of adolescent males, arises from either the lateral wall or the roof of the nasopharynx. Patients usually present at the late stage of the disease. Surgery is the treatment of choice. No single approach is applicable to all cases. However, most of the tumours are excisable by a lateral rhinotomy approach, with less chance of recurrence. The modified transpalatal approach provides excellent exposure. Recurrence occurs within 2 years.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207